This week the Faithful celebrate the Feast of the Holy
Family. Sometimes presiders do not follow the readings recommended in the Ordo.
This year is Cycle C for which the recommended reading is the Finding in the Temple. Cycle B is the
Presentation, while Cycle A is the Flight into Egypt. If the presider were
unprepared, the Flight into Egypt
would offer the most-readily available reading.
This is the first time the format is changing from a
narrative with footnotes toward an annotated bibliography. This format does not
require grammatically complete sentences. The main reason for the change is to
eliminate the need to impose a unifying theme on all the readings. This way the
reader will not expect a smooth flow of thought, but rather disjointed Personal Notes based
on scholarly resources. When no pertinent information is available, readings
will be skipped.
Before examining the readings in Sacred Scripture, an
article of a more general nature merits consideration. The theme of this
particular issue of the History and Theory: Studies in the Philosophy of History
is religion and history. Since I am an historian, all of the articles in the journal
merit consideration. As might be expected, I have my own strongly held opinions
about the relationship between religion and history. Those opinions are briefly
developed below and are elaborated on my website, www.western-civilization.com
Wesleyan University in Middletown
Connecticut publishes the
scholarly journal. While scholarly, therefore, the Journal is not secular. Volume
45, No. 4. (December 2006) is the Theme Issue, titled “Religion and History.”
The key article on pages 10-26, is “History and Religion in the Modern Age,” by
Constantin Fasolt.
The question posed is the relationship between religion and
history. That is the wrong question to pose. The issue is between the political
institutions that support history and religion, basically church and state. Once
the issue is settled, the intellectual facts turn on what it means to be
modern. My working definition of modernism is acceptance of the astronomy of
Galileo, the evolution of Darwin, the psychology of Freud, as included in the inductive reasoning associated
with the scientific method.
Because institutional religion historically fought all
three, Galileo, Darwin, and Freud,
historians find it difficult to explain how religion survives. The reason is
that historians have substituted secular politics for religious politics. The
Sacred Scripture readings for this Sunday help describe my point. Luke 2:46-47 presents Jesus
in the temple, listening and asking questions “and all who heard him were
astounded at his understanding and his answers.” Galileo, Darwin,
and Freud also astounded their listeners.
At age twelve, Jesus
posed no political threat to the teachers mentioned in Sacred Scripture. Later,
when he did, they crucified him in the name of institutional religion.
Beginning with modern times, at least since the time of Galileo (1564-1642),
the state contested the dogmatism of institutional religion. Currently in the United States,
the institutional state devotes more resources pursuing truth than does
institutional religion, though both compete in their efforts. Because the state
devotes more resources to searching for the truth, the state has the upper hand
determining what may be politically correct.
Fitting in with the flow of what people are accepting, suits
this Feast of the Holy Family. In their Flight into Egypt, the Holy Family endured the
hardships associated with challenging what everyone else was doing. Leaving the
Promised Land for Egypt
was not in the spirit of what their neighbors expected of them.
The First Reading:
1 Samuel 1:20-22, 24-28
1 Sam 1:3-22
Adrian M. Leske,
“Context and Meaning of Zechariah 9:9”
Going to Shiloh to celebrate the Feast of Booths. The article
draws a parallel between the Presentation of Jesus at the temple and the
presentation of Samuel.
Margaret Barker, The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots
of Christian
Liturgy
At Shiloh. The parents of Mary
offered her at the temple at the age of three, like the parents of Samuel. There are serious reservations about the
value of the research of Margaret
Barker. Reading 14B, page 2,
documented with footnote 6, December 25, 2005 and Reading 18B, pages 5 and 6, documented with
footnotes 20, 21, and 22, January 1, 2006, describe these reservations.
The Second Reading:
1 John 3:1-2, 21-24
1 John 2:28—3:10
Urban C. Von
Wahlde, "The Stereotyped Structure and the
Puzzling Pronouns of 1 John 2:28—3:10”
Jesus is the model for the Faithful, with the hope of
better things to come. The article only catches two verses, 1 and 2, from the Lectionary
1 John 3:1-2, 21-24.
. I have
already done the Greek for this reading, as follows:
Page
in
Reading Chapter verse Lectionary
17C 1 John 3: 1-2, 21-24 105
50B 1 John 3: 1-2 395
53A 1 John 3: 1-2,
18-24 410
1 John
3:1 in Reading 17C translates the Yet
in 50B as And.
There is another difference between the readings. 1 John 3:2, in Reading
17C, does not break the verse at the first and,
like Reading 50B. This unexplained lack of consistency is but one more sign of
sloppy scholarship in the Lectionary.
1
John 3:2
Frank J.
Matera, "Christ
in the Theologies of Paul and John: A Study in the Diverse Unity of New Testament
Theology"
Paul begins with the Cross to portray Jesus as revealing God to humanity. John begins with the Incarnation to portray God as
revealing himself to humanity. Christology shifts. With Paul,
the Faithful reveal the Father to humanity through how they bear their various
crosses. With Luke, God reveals
himself to humanity through the way the Faithful live. The Holy Family is the
First Family of the Faithful.
John 3:18-22
Casimir Bernas, O.C.S.O.,
review of Angelo
Scarano, Storia dell’interpretazione ed
esegesi di 1 Gv 3, 18-22
A doctoral
dissertation in theology from the Biblical Institute in Rome. Verses 18-20 (used in Reading 53A)
belies a false mysticism with a proper activism. Verses 21-24, used here, belie
a false activism with a proper mysticism. In other words, going to Daily Mass
without social engagement is as wrong as social engagement without a fervent
prayer life.
The Gospel: Luke 2:41-52
Luke
2:41-48
Alexander Globe,
"Some Doctrinal Variants in Matthew
1 and Luke 2, and the Authority of the
Neutral Text”
In the
beginning, differences in Biblical texts were relatively easy to manipulate.
The first statement of Mary’s virginitas post partem occurred with
Zeno, 362-372 A.D., something about which Luke
does not worry, though Matthew does.
Luke 2:46
Terence J. Keegan,
O.P., "Introductory Formulae for
Matthean Discourses”
Jesus is teaching, seated, in the proper posture of
the rabbis of the time.
Luke 1:27
Kilian McDonnell,
O.S.B., “Feminist Mariologies: Heteronomy/Subordination and the Scandal of
Christology”
Accents
liberation rather than virginity.
Cheryl A. Kirk-Duggan,
‘”Let My People Go! Threads of Exodus in African American Narratives”
Not to
over-read the social activism of liberationist theology into Luke 1.